Quick Opinion: Convicted felons justly lost the right to vote as a consequence of their crimes.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder called on 11 states to restore voting rights to ex-felons, saying it disenfranchises people. Foolish people who wreck their lives by committing felony crimes must deal with the consequences. They have no one but themselves to blame for losing rights such as the ability to vote and own a gun.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

"Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own." Jonathan Swift "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members." Groucho Marx

My understanding of the law is that if you commit a crime, part of the punishment is losing your voting rights. The length of time of loss can be determined by the individual states, some its only during incarceration, others incarceration and parole time. Now, the question that should be asked is not who is disenfranchizing this group, but by committing the crime, and knowing the law, did they themselves not knowingly give up thier right to vote? and where do you draw the line, one offence?, what if that offence is murder?

"Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own." Jonathan Swift "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members." Groucho Marx

Scotland, my comment title is not directed at you, but I wonder how you feel about a couple of things.

What do you say about institutionalized bigotry? For example, Jim Crow Laws, that were designed to keep African Americans imprisoned in free labor chain gangs and away from the polls by having a criminal record. That was during the last century in Texas. Fast forward.

What do you think about laws that disproportionaltely affect minorities in a way they don't affect majorities, such as drug laws and sentencing guidelines?

I am just curious. They were lobbied for and written by many of the same "states' rights" influenced groups as the Jim Crow laws.

Interesting questions, thank you for bringing them up. I think laws are laws, and as such everyone should be treated the same, though i do know this does not happen. It is dependant on wealth, race and other dimensions. For example the "afluenza" case to me was a farce, had he been a poor kid he would be sitting in jail right now and for a prolonged period of time no doubt.

With specific regards to drug laws, I am sorry, but i think they are not stringent enough, but again they should be equal and they are not. Rich people can appear to break the law with impunity, they get a slap on the wrist and they are done, for the poor it is not so easy. But having seen what drugs can do to people, I am totally against any law that allows or reduces drug related crime punishment and severity. No one forces people to take drugs, its a choice, so the only person effecting you by a criminal record is yourself, you chose your path, you should accept the resonsibility that goes with the choice.

Sentencing guidelines should, if different, be proportional, for example, if I break the law and my fine is say $5,000, IMO, it would make sense that someone 20 times richer than I am should receive a fine 20 times higher and the opposite for someone poorer; the effect therefore on all is the same.

The Jim Crow laws were not good for anyone, but they no longer exist. Whilst not denying the detremental effects of them, they are gone. History is a great source of information, and I by no means wish to be viewed as belittling the effects, but the truith is they no longer apply.

I think we are now at the stage where people are chosing the laws they like and do not like. The later then becomes a target to make it disappear. The law is specific, you lose your right to vote if you are a felon; the states can, and do, reinstate your voting rights when you are out. What is the point of a declared punishment IF you do not follow through with it? When you are in jail it is for a reason, and you have negated or infringed someone elses rights; why then should you preserve all your own rights when you reduced the value of someone elses?

"Young age" is not an all encompasing "get out of jail free card" no pun intended. Older people make mistakes as well, they also go to jail, and they come out afterwards. So do women, so does everyone. The truth is, but for the choices we make we are all capable, regardless of age or gender, of committing a crime and ending up in jail.

The question should be, how can wealth or race be allowed to make such an impact on who does and who does not go.

You know more about the Constitution than most conservatives that were born here.

I am still trying to figure out the idiocy of this editorial. As chicken wing points out, Texas felons can vote when they complete their sentences, parole, and probation. Holder is asking 11 states to reconsider their laws, maybe the AJ is unaware or more concerned with other states than their own.

Either way, the A-J edititorial board needs to edit their final drafts more carefully. Use spellcheck and facts.

On a slightly unrelated note, another way to look at mandatory sentencing laws is that they take the power to determine punishment away from a jury, where it belongs, and put it in the hands of a centralized power. And btw, so-called tort reform does the same thing by severely limiting the punishment a jury can hand out. That's not how our jury system was designed to work.

It makes no sense to permanently take away the right to vote. Once a person has completed their sentence, the goal should be to integrate them back into society, not permanently disenfranchise them. That's just self defeating. Along the same lines, there is a strong argument to be made for letting people vote even while in prison. Leave them the choice to start being responsible citizens at any point.

"[H]aving seen what drugs can do to people, I am totally against any law that allows or reduces drug related crime punishment and severity."

You seem to be saying that drugs can ruin a user's life (true!), and therefore the law needs to be harsh and unrelenting. This doesn't make any sense. If your concern is for the wellbeing of the user, who has undeniably made bad choices, then why make the consequences of those choices 1,000x worse with stiff sentences and additional lifelong penalties?

And the moral rationale for punishment is lacking here. Illegal drug use is a victimless crime. The only one hurt is the user. (OK, some drug users steal to support their habit, and you can argue that the money they give to drug sellers supports crime. But there are laws against theft, laws against dealing in contraband, and much more rational ways to take the economic incentive out of drug dealing.)

Do you think that a more severe punishment will deter people from getting caught up with drugs? I would have to look into the research, but my own personal experience suggests that the most vulnerable young people aren't thinking quite so rationally. So all that the draconian legal code does is erect huge barriers to a return to productive citizenship.

I suggest that if WE really cared about the drug user, we would provide rehabilitation, education, and perhaps job training first. And we would wipe the record clean after a few years of drug-free life. Can you defend the opposite view?

Whilst I agree with the majority of what you say, I cant agree with the right to vote whilst in prison. As I said, in committing the crime you are convicted of, you have negated or removed someone elses rights in some shape or form. You are in prison to be punished, part of that punishment, in accordance with the law is you lose the right to vote. That is simply my view though, others may not agree.

You state, and correctly IMO, people need to be intergrated back into society, they have paid for their crime by serving time, and should now be alloweed to be a fully funtioning member of society. To do this they must feel part of the society and voting allows that to be partially accomplished.

Thank you for your input and helping/encourgaging me look at a wider picture though, your insights on mandatory sentencing and tort reform are valuable educational tools.

"...people need to be intergrated back into society, they have paid for their crime by serving time, and should now be alloweed to be a fully funtioning member of society."

This is exactly what Eric Holder is saying.

edited to say: I said that there's a credible argument to be made that people should be allowed to vote while in prison. Don't really know if that is the correct answer, just saying that the argument has merit. It is an important difference.

Whilst I am against reducing the terms impossed or the severity of the fines etc. I am not in anyway against helping people who are addicts; I myself am an addict if you like, I smoke and have done for many years, that is a drug addiction. Your rationale that the only person effected is the user and that it is a victimless crime is, IMO, far from the truth.

I personally, would like to see rehabilitation from dependancy as part of the prison sentence, but then conversly, should they re-offend, and drugs are the underlying reason, then the next sentence should be proportionally more severe. I do agree with your "carrot vs stick" idea though, and I think that if you have proved over a dictated period of time to be drug free, then yes, removal of the record should be available as a reward.

Thanks for the links. I skimmed them, and I will read them more thoroughly later. There is a lot there. But the first and third sites are very clear demonstrations not of the costs of drug use, but rather of the immense and counter-productive costs of our misguided war on drug users. It seems clear that this is the case their creators are making. I hope you don't mind if I appropriate your own links, and claim that they support my own arguments much better than they do yours.

The first one clearly shows that the war on drugs is a losing effort and a waste of money, and that the biggest financial sinkhole is law enforcement and corrections. It seems to be a clear call for more investment in prevention and treatment. I couldn't agree more.

The third one addresses the cost in lives, rather than the cost in money, and it is even more explicit in its advocacy:

"This stubborn resistance against entertaining any other options beyond a fundamentalist adherence to prohibition for dealing with drug use in the United States is cloaked in an arrogant denial of the human costs of the drug war and the possibility that ending it would lead to less, not more, death."

These are arguments against DRUG LAWS, not against DRUG USERS.

Finally, the second site is about drug addiction, not illegal drug use. It is explicitly talking to addiction to "alcohol, nicotine, drugs or even caffeine." This has nothing to do with the law, and everything to do with treatment and prevention of addiction.

If I were to take one message from these three sites, it would be that it is time to decriminalize drug use, and redirect JUST A FRACTION of the money we now waste on the drug war towards treatment and prevention programs. With all respect, I don't understand how you can reach such a different conclusion.

If there was no drug use, none of these costs would exist; I see the costs no purely as a financial thing, but view the lives involved as more important. Yes the financial costs are huge for us all, but what is the option, make all drugs legal and then what? My belief is that, and as you point out, we waste a fortune on the drug war, but the cost of doing nothing would be even greater. We would have an entire nation of drug users, increasing the dangers to all and destroying any chance of a productive society for our children.

The second site is to do with addiction. But addiction to legal or non legal drugs is in the end addiction, the effects on others is exactly the same no matter the legality of it. We railled against smokers because of the effects of second hand smoke and the cost to health care etc. Do you honestly beleive the same costs do not exisit, and may even surpass the costs of smoking, if we ignored the law against drug use?

I see no good reason to reduce or stop what we are doing now. If someone comes up with a better system then we should look at it. For example, your idea of removing records for staying clean, I think that is a good idea and one worthy of consideration. But to say it is pointless to try and stop drug use through the law, through detterance of the supply, or that there is no cost to anyone except the addict is in my view wrong.

As an aside, If we decriminalize drug use, will you feel safer driving on the roads? Will you feel better going to a hospital for treatment, would you feel your children are safe in a school bus or that they are looked after by thier teachers better than they are now?
If you decriminalize it, then you have to open its use to all, that includes people who drive for a living, doctors and nurses, EMTs teachers, everyone and anyone, or do we draw a line and say who can and who can not use drugs and create a two tier society? I get drug tested regularily to prove I do not use drugs, that is for your safety not just mine, it ensures that decisions I, or anyone makes, are not detrimental to you or your loved ones. Or do we say it is only legal on a weekend and the first two days of the week, if you prove positive, it does not count? If thats the case do we criminalize use at all other times for everyone, or do we make laws that only effect certain people? To do nothing, IMO, would have a greater over all cost than what is currently being done.

The links were simply to support the "cost" both financial and socio-psycholigically speaking of drugs. I understand what you mean, and I read them as you do, but my interest was the costs as references nothing more. Spare Tire made the statement :

"Illegal drug use is a victimless crime. The only one hurt is the user. (OK, some drug users steal to support their habit, and you can argue that the money they give to drug sellers supports crime. But there are laws against theft, laws against dealing in contraband, and much more rational ways to take the economic incentive out of drug dealing.)" I certainly do not agree with that statement, it hurts way more people than just the user; the references were there to back up that point, not to argue yes or no for reform. They show financial costs, physical costs and psycholigical/social costs.

I do not look for links that are solely in favor of my position 100% of the time, I accept other views exist and even support a different approach, because I do not agree with them does not make them any less relevant to the topic.
But as I said, How would we control who can, and who can not, indulge in drug useage? How does doing nothing, or removing the current system, make anything or anyone safer? Whilst I agree it is a rediculous amount of money, IMO, the physical/emotional/psycholigical costs of doing nothing on current and future generations, outstrips that cost.

I happen to beleive that everything is incentivized by financial gain, not just "justice". Thats why the rich do not go to jail that often, it is why people are better off voting for government support than working, it is how people keep a hold of power, and it is the reason behind most government decisions and laws.

Just to prove the point, are you aware that the raising of the minimum wage the president promised recently, raises the tax payment for the recipients AND reduces the incentives they receive for Obamacare, making a null gain for those involved, possible even a loss? People voted for it to get something for nothing, it sounds good, but in the end nothing really changes, just government gets more money in the long run.

That was use of a financial incentive to keep control. It let those who support a wage increase feel something had been done, keeping them happy; it let those on the minumim wage think they were getting an increase, keeping them happy, and let the government make money without spending more, keeping them happy. In the end, the only happy ones will be government.

Yeah, I am still having trouble understanding why you used those links because the "cost" argument doesn't follow your logic for wanting to keep the current system.

By the way, who is advocating for doing nothing? Not on this thread. Most folks here would like to see more treatment for a disease than a punishment for a non violent offense. Research has shown it is cheaper to treat, rehabilitate than incarcerate. Much better societal outcomes, too. Even as you claim to be a libertarian, you are so far away from your fellow libertarians on drug offenses.

I hope you had a chance to look at my links.

I was ok with your comment until you fall back on your usual "it is why people are better off voting for government support than working". I don't know the people you know. You gave an anecdotal once, but you generalize and stereotype so much of the time even as the facts don't support your stereotyping. Maybe if your boys would get off the sideline and stop obstructing opportunity and growth, we would have less need for the social safety net.

We've been over this before. I even have you on record for wanting to raise the minimum wage and increase opportunity and growth.

You completely lost me on your new argument against the minimum wage. Ofcourse there will be an increase in revenues? Why wouldn't there be?

I mean no disrespect, but you seem to not have figured out where you stand on much of what you discuss.

Edited to add. Scotland, you raise the issue of the wealthy that get off. Holder and even some of your fellow libertarians are concerned about the injustice involved with the legal system and poverty. Holder's motive for asking states to reconsider their voting laws is to rectify some of the "disparities and divisions that are unworthy of the greatest justice system the world has ever known.”

" I am still having trouble understanding why you used those links because the "cost" argument doesn't follow your logic for wanting to keep the current system." ....... The links were simply used to support the costs, nothing more, they were not intended to defend anything but the actual costs. If I had given a more right wing reference you would be telling me the costs were squewed because of the right wing bias, I went with the other direction to try to obtain agreement on the costs, nothing more.

". Most folks here would like to see more treatment for a disease than a punishment for a non violent offense. Research has shown it is cheaper to treat, rehabilitate than incarcerate. Much better societal outcomes, too. Even as you claim to be a libertarian, you are so far away from your fellow libertarians on drug offenses. "....... If you look at my 0936 post, you will see the last paragraph gives thoughts on rehabilitation/education and even rewards those who stay clean.

I have no problem raising the minimum wage. It was pointed out to me recently though that those who the president has raised from $15k per year to $20K per year, entered a different tax bracket and as such will pay more taxes. That $5k "raise" is lost when you also add in the Obamacare benefit they lose because of the increased income. The end result in that case is the individual, IMO, is not any better off, the government will get more in taxes and also pay out less in subsidised health care costs, so who wins? not the low paid earner, only the government. It is a game of smoke and mirrors, give with one hand, take with the other and at all times appearing to be doing the right thing.

I never disagreed with Holder about his aim, my 0811 post shows how I feel about the inequalities, I repeated similar at 0916 and May said at 0926 I was agreeing with what Holder says. Infact, the only thing I questioned about voting rights was the right to vote whilst serving a sentence.

"As an aside, If we decriminalize drug use, will you feel safer driving on the roads? [...] If you decriminalize it, then you have to open its use to all, that includes people who drive for a living, doctors and nurses, EMTs teachers, everyone and anyone, or do we draw a line and say who can and who can not use drugs and create a two tier society?"

Alcohol is legal, but drunk driving is illegal. I don't see a contradiction. I can go home tonight and get drunk, and it's nobody's business but my own. But if I show up to work drunk, then I will be fired. The same holds for doctors, nurses, EMTs, teachers, and airline pilots. These professions are not currently prohibited from drinking on their own time, but If they are under the influence at work they lose their jobs. Why should other drugs be treated differently?

"[T]he cost of doing nothing would be even greater. We would have an entire nation of drug users..."

Scotland, this is simply not true. Alcohol is legal, but we do not have an entire nation of drunks. Nicotine is highly addictive and legal, but we do not have a nation of smokers. Again, why would other drugs be different?

Not to belabor this excessively, but there are a lot of destructive addictions. Teens addicted to video games become recluses and flunk out of school. People become addicted to watching pornography, or to staying up until 3 AM writing long posts on obscure Internet sites. But most people can indulge in these little vices in appropriate moderation. We don't need to be protected from ourselves by making them illegal.

Sex addiction can be very destructive, both to the addict and to the addict's family. Like illegal drug sales, sex for money puts huge profits in criminal pockets. Human trafficking in prostitutes and sex slaves creates untold misery. How is this fundamentally different than drug trafficking? So do you advocate controlling sex addiction by enacting mandatory 30 year sentences for anybody that has sex?

Provides what you libs are screeching for. Less incarceration and more treatment.

In place in Lubbock County:

First time Misdemeanor drug arrests and convictions are given the opportunity to be placed on pre-trial diversion, enter rehab with the county paying, report in for twelve to eighteen months and charges will never be filed.

First time Felony offenders are given the opportunity to 24 months to ten years probation, with county drug treatment and the charges will be dismissed upon successful completion.

I see a few that are smart enough to learn their lesson and go forward to become productive citizens.

But the majority are those charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance, Penalty Group 1 < 1 gram or 1-4 grams, are given deferred adjudication, only to reoffend before the first year is finished.

The tools are already in place and have been for years.

Truth is: To most offenders, voting is something that is not really high on their list.

If incarcerated, it still isn't. But whining and complaining and direction from jailhouse lawyers, allow for more and more writs being filed because it gives the offender something to do to pass the time when they are inevitably revoked and sentenced.

I don't think we should be coddling these criminals. In fact, I am suggesting a 100% guaranteed solution that will ensure they never commit another drug crime: decriminalize drug use. Et Voila! No more drug offenders, no more recidivism, no more writs, no more whining.

Now spend 10% of the former drug enforcement budget on education, prevention, and treatment programs, with clinics that treat drug users like patients, and not like parolees. I promise that you'll have a higher success rate among people who want to get the monkey off their back, not the judge. For the people who aren't ready to seek help... how about prayer?

I appreciate part of your comment. Could you please provide a link? I am curious as to why other parts of Texas don't offer what you claim Lubbock County does.

Also, if you could include any information on the rehab facilities, accredidation, agencies involved, and required credentials for those overseeing the program; that would be helpful.

I have heard of such places, but they weren't really rehab centers. They were more like regressive religious conversion centers with unqualified folks without proper training or education running the facility. Pretty scary places if your an addict with health conditions that require medical attention.

"Alcohol is legal, but drunk driving is illegal...... But if I show up to work drunk, then I will be fired. The same holds for doctors, nurses, EMTs, teachers, and airline pilots....."

I understand your dilema, but alcohol does not remain in your system in any great level beyond 24 hours, unless you drink again during it. Drugs such as heroine, cocaine etc. can and do remain there for up to a month, having residual effects on your body and on your decision process. There have been recorded cases of "flashbacks" even up to a year afterwards with siome drugs. http://www.lsdaddiction.us/content/acid-flashbacks.html

That is the real difference, you and I can both clear alcohol from our body successfully, but no one can gauruntee or say the same about drugs we take into our bodies. To me that creates a liability for others and puts everyone at risk.

From my own life, although not actually there, but we were all given the information, during my time on submarines, a planesman had a "flashback" and dived a submarine into the ocean floor. Fortunately this was not a nuclear sub, and it was not to deep, but that could have cost a lot of lives, just because he had a drug habit. No one knows if or when they will happen, or what triggers them, but they do happen.